This case is before the Authority on a motion for reconsideration filed
by the Union under section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.
The Union requests reconsideration of the Authority's Order of November 22,
1991, which dismissed the Union's petition for review because the Union had
failed to comply with prior deficiency Orders of the Authority. The Agency did
not file an opposition to the Union's request.

For the following reasons, we conclude that the Union has failed to
establish that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting reconsideration of
the Order dismissing the petition. Accordingly, we will deny the motion for
reconsideration.

II. Background

On April 29, 1991, the Union filed its petition for review with the
Authority. On May 14, 1991, the Authority issued an Order directing the Union
to correct a deficiency in its petition. The Authority directed the Union to
file an original and four copies of a statement addressing whether a concurrent
unfair labor practice charge had been filed and, if so, to indicate under which
procedure it chose to proceed. The Union was informed that failure to comply
with the Order could result in dismissal of its petition. On June 19, 1991, the
Authority received a signed certified mail return receipt card acknowledging
receipt by the Union of the May 14 Order. To date, the Union has not filed a
response to the May 14 Order and has not cured the deficiency.

On June 4, 1991, the Agency filed its Statement of Position
(Statement). On June 26, 1991, the Union filed its response to the Agency's
Statement with the Authority but failed to serve its response on the Agency's
representative of record. On July 12, 1991, the Authority issued a second
deficiency Order. The Authority again directed the Union to comply with the May
14 Order and further directed the Union to serve its response to the Agency's
Statement on the Agency's representative of record. To date, the Union has not
filed a response to the July 12 Order. The Authority has not received a signed
return receipt indicating that the Union received the July 12 Order.

By Order of November 22, 1991, the Authority dismissed the Union's
petition for the Union's failure to respond to the May 14 and July 12 Orders.
On December 11, 1991, the Authority received a signed return receipt indicating
that the Union had received the November 22 Order. All of the Authority's
orders were mailed to the Union at the same address.

III. The Union's Motion for Reconsideration

The Union requests the Authority to reconsider its decision dismissing
the Union's petition. The Union asserts that it "did not receive a copy
of the May 14, 1991 or the July 12, 1991 Order." Motion at 2 (emphasis in
original). The Union argues that as it "never received the Orders upon which
the Authority's decision is based, it is impermissible for the Authority to
dismiss the Union's Petition on the ground that the Union failed to respond to
its Orders." Id.

IV. Analysis and Conclusions

Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations permits a
party that can establish "extraordinary circumstances" to request
reconsideration of a decision of the Authority. We find that the Union has not
established the existence of extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of
section 2429.17 that warrant reconsideration of the Authority's Order
dismissing the petition.

As stated above, the Authority received a signed certified mail return
receipt card acknowledging receipt by the Union of the Authority's May 14
Order. There is no assertion that the individual who signed the certified
return receipt card was unauthorized to do so. Under these circumstances, we
reject the Union's assertion that it did not receive the May 14 Order.

The Union was informed in the May 14 Order that failure to comply with
that Order may result in the dismissal of its petition. To date, the Union has
failed to cure the May 14 deficiency.

As stated above, the Authority has not received a signed return receipt
indicating that the Union received the July 12 Order. Accordingly, the previous
Order dismissing the petition should not have relied on the Union's failure to
comply with that Order. However, the Union's failure to receive the July 12
Order does not require us to grant the request for reconsideration because the
Union's failure to comply with the May 14 Order was a proper basis on which to
dismiss the Union's petition. Accordingly, we conclude that the Union has not
established extraordinary circumstances which warrant reconsideration of the
dismissal of the petition.

V. Order

The Union's motion for reconsideration of the Authority's Order in 43
FLRA 267 is denied.